Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

The Trump presidency

Status
Not open for further replies.
What I said was that there are large numbers US academics with superior knowledge of British history than not just British people in general, but British people who themselves have a very good knowledge of history.
ah. but british history-knowers is, as i said in my edit above, equivocal, as it could be a) people who know about british history, and thus include your american academics; or b) british people who know about british history; or c) british people who know about history of other parts.
 
Are we seriously doing this now? Because this is really fucking stupid. There are thousands of US academics in US universities, and no doubt non-US universities, with far superior knowledge of all sorts of aspects of British history than probably the top 1% of British history-knowers. The idea that someone of one nationality cannot dispute, or discuss, the history of another country without a person from that country claiming superior knowledge purely on the basis of their nationality is seriously moronic. More ignorant than most of the crap Trump comes out with.

It isn't the first time that I've seen this sort of attitude displayed on this thread but it's the first time that I have seen it actually referred to explicitly.
nonetheless the thrust of your post, that it is stupid to say that only e.g. mongolians can discuss mongolian history, is of course a sound point.
 
Are we seriously doing this now? Because this is really fucking stupid. There are thousands of US academics in US universities, and no doubt non-US universities, with far superior knowledge of all sorts of aspects of British history than probably the top 1% of British history-knowers. The idea that someone of one nationality cannot dispute, or discuss, the history of another country without a person from that country claiming superior knowledge purely on the basis of their nationality is seriously moronic. More ignorant than most of the crap Trump comes out with.

It isn't the first time that I've seen this sort of attitude displayed on this thread but it's the first time that I have seen it actually referred to explicitly.

I believe the complaint wasn't about the information conveyed. It was about the condescending tone in which it was delivered.
 
You do realise nearly 3 million more people went into polling booths and ticked the box by Clinton's name than the one by Trump's name, right? :rolleyes:

Of the African Americans who did vote, 82% of men and 94% of women went for Clinton. If you're looking at a group to "blame," how about the 53% of white women who voted Trump (as opposed to 43% for Clinton), despite ample awareness of his anti-women views, misogyny and history of sexual assaults.

I find it curious that so many outspoken liberal / left / Bernie-or-Bust / 3rd party supporter white men are so quick to blame Trump's win on Clinton being a "poor" candidate and on Black people for not turning up to vote. But those same white men seem really, really reluctant to apportion blame with the majority of white women where you don't have to speculate because they actively voted for Trump.

Here's a few pieces that unpick the "whys" behind the 53% of white women voting Trump, and

White women voted for Trump in 2016 because they still believe white men are their saviors
Why Did White Women Vote For Trump? Look At Kellyanne Conway’s Sexual Harassment Story.

Why White Women Voted for Donald Trump
Why white women voted for Trump, in their own words
The quiet racism behind the white female Trump voter
Comedian Nikki Glaser Blames Oprah for White Women Voting Trump Into Office


And for those so quick to dismiss voter suppression as a factor in fewer African Americans casting votes, I think that's pretty telling, too.

North Carolina GOP Brags Racist Voter Suppression Is Working—and They’re Right
Early-voting data confirms that blacks in the swing state aren’t voting as much as in 2012—not for a lack of enthusiasm or effort, but because of rules designed to stop them.

We Can’t Talk About the Black Vote in the 2016 Election Without Discussing Voter Suppression

Wisconsin, the state in which Gov. Scott Walker signed a voter ID law that disproportionately affects poor blacks, was won by Donald Trump by 30,000 votes — while as many as 300,000 people were prevented from voting. And 60,000 fewer people voted in Milwaukee, the city with 70% of Wisconsin's black population.

When a discriminatory piece of legislation was passed in North Carolina, then subsequently struck down by the federal courts, Republican-controlled county elections boards found other methods to suppress minority voters, such as cutting the number of locations available to vote at, and restricting the hours, both contributing to huge lines, designed to dissuade voters from participating in the election press. And it worked: Black voters were down 9% statewide in this election, and Trump won by fewer than 200,000 votes.


The real reason black voters didn’t turn out for Hillary Clinton — and how to fix it
GOP voter suppression efforts are the key to combatting a changing demographic that trends blue

The low turnout for Clinton had little to do with her black support and everything to do with the effective campaign of voter suppression run by Republicans, one that has decimated accessible options for people of color.

Harvard researcher Stephen Pettigrew found that African-Americans were six times more likely than members of demographic groups to spend more than an hour in line in order to vote.

Part of the problem is the resources allotted to polling places in predominantly black communities. Those districts have fewer poll workers to assist voters and guide them through the process and have fewer voting machines on hand to process voters in a timely manner.

Rather than making voting easier for minorities and low-income people, Republicans have engaged in a “Don’t Get Out the Vote” campaign designed to keep these populations from the voting booth.

This action was enabled by the Supreme Court’s 2013 decision to nullify Section 5, related to preclearance, in the Voting Rights Act of 1965. That portion of the law, passed under the President Lyndon Johnson administration to prevent voter suppression on the basis of race, requires that states with a history of such practices gain approval from U.S. Department of Justice before making any changes to voting regulations. The absence of that federal oversight has allowed numerous states to restrict early voting hours, which is aimed at targeting voting among people of color.

If Republicans hope to keep winning elections, it’s likely that they will continue to attempt to keep people from voting. If Democrats hope to combat that strategy, they should advocate that voters have more ways to cast ballots.
So you're not going to actually reply, you're going to go off on a tangent. Nice one.

And, please note, I have not 'blamed' black voters for not voting for Clinton, I blame the Democratic Party for running an awful campaign, including (but by no means limited to) their choice of candidate. Clinton could still have won had she shown more effort in a couple of key states that she assumed were in the bag until far too late.

Likewise, i do not deny for a second that voter suppression took place, just that there is not the evidence to say it was a decisive factor.

But you keep on with your own blinkered vision, there's nothing anyone will be able to do about that, you're one of those for whom "facts" mean nothing unless they jive with your already-established beliefs.
 
Are we seriously doing this now? Because this is really fucking stupid. There are thousands of US academics in US universities, and no doubt non-US universities, with far superior knowledge of all sorts of aspects of British history than probably the top 1% of British history-knowers. The idea that someone of one nationality cannot dispute, or discuss, the history of another country without a person from that country claiming superior knowledge purely on the basis of their nationality is seriously moronic. More ignorant than most of the crap Trump comes out with.

It isn't the first time that I've seen this sort of attitude displayed on this thread but it's the first time that I have seen it actually referred to explicitly.

Um, I don't think I meant that how you think I meant it. It was more about sort of a tone than anything, and of someone not knowing I was American trying to explain American-ness to me. Because my original post wasn't about actual history anyway, more of a belief system we're taught, so the point wasn't really relevant to what I was saying.

(I.e. it's besides the point, just like it would be beside the point to point out something like "Christ was a wife beater who hated pizza!" in the case of Christians doing something "unChristian")

You're free to think I'm annoying, I'm free to think other people are. Not trying to halt debate or anything like that. Let's move on.
 
Um, I don't think I meant that how you think I meant it. It was more about sort of a tone than anything, and of someone not knowing I was American trying to explain American-ness to me. Because my original post wasn't about actual history anyway, more of a belief system we're taught, so the point wasn't really relevant to what I was saying.

(I.e. it's besides the point, just like it would be beside the point to point out something like "Christ was a wife beater who hated pizza!" in the case of Christians doing something "unChristian")

You're free to think I'm annoying, I'm free to think other people are. Not trying to halt debate or anything like that. Let's move on.

Just to point out that Christ was never married, he lived with his girlfriend but had commitment issues. Also pizza didn't exist in Christs time, he loved kebabs though.
 
As an American, reading the posts here, most of you know way more about American history, almost more than anyone I know.
It's sad, but the school systems here lie to us from the beginning!
 
Trump is practically going back to the golden era of The Founders.

Heh, I was reading about the American Revolution yesterday and some Brexit/Trump parallels came to mind.

In a 1972 article, “An Economic Interpretation of the American Revolution,” Marc Egnal and Joseph A. Ernst suggested that the Revolution may have been triggered by the growth of British capitalism, which for decades flooded the colonies with easy credit and with manufactured goods that were better and cheaper than Americans could make themselves. The British were doing to us in the seventeen-sixties more or less what China is doing to us today.

Tea And Antipathy

The Canadian colonies, meanwhile, had to deal with a flood of thousands of refugees fleeing the brutal insurgency to the south.
 
"By a 51/23 margin Trump voters say that the Bowling Green Massacre shows why Trump's immigration policy is needed."

& '51% of them think he should personally be able to overturn decisions he doesn't agree with'

Americans Now Evenly Divided on Impeaching Trump
It's not ignorance it's more like religious faith isn't it.
...
-Voters think he's over reaching to make a country safe...that they already consider to be safe. 66% of Americans consider the United States to be a safe country, to only 23% who consider it unsafe. Perhaps as an outgrowth of that sentiment only 45% of voters support Trump's Executive Order on immigration, to 49% who are opposed to it. Among those who do support it you have to wonder how well thought out their position is- by a 51/23 margin Trump voters say that the Bowling Green Massacre shows why Trump's immigration policy is needed.

By a 48/43 spread, voters do think that the intent of the Executive Order is to be a Muslim ban. And just 22% support a Muslim ban, to 65% who are opposed. The order has also increasingly raised issues about Trump's competence in voters' eyes- only 27% think the Executive Order was well executed, to 66% who think it was poorly executed. The spread on that question was 39/55 when we asked last week.

Another aspect of voters already feeling safe is that they don't want to pay for the wall with Mexico. Just 32% support a 20% tax on items imported to the United States from Mexico, to 55% who are opposed to that concept. And in general only 37% of voters want the wall if US taxpayers have to front the cost for it, to 56% who are against that.
...
My bold, I saw some polling late on support for a Muslim Ban in Europe. In the UK it is more than twice as high as this figure. In other parts of Europe over three times. Of course this might reflect growing hysteria after recent Salafi-Jihadi attacks on The Continent, the realities of a large refugee low/ageing population and a lot of far-right agitation but also probably greater American respect for freedom of religion.
 
Just to point out that Christ was never married, he lived with his girlfriend but had commitment issues. Also pizza didn't exist in Christs time, he loved kebabs though.
he was a sailor when he waalked upon the water, and he spent a long time wanking in his lonely wooden tower
 
As an American, reading the posts here, most of you know way more about American history, almost more than anyone I know.
It's sad, but the school systems here lie to us from the beginning!

Definitely true that there are a lot of knowledgable people here. Though (and this isn't a caveat) everyone naturally is going to have their own interpretation of historical facts, depending on a lot of factors such as where they grew up.
 
My bold, I saw some polling late on support for a Muslim Ban in Europe. In the UK it is more than twice as high as this figure. In other parts of Europe over three times. Of course this might reflect growing hysteria after recent Salafi-Jihadi attacks on The Continent, the realities of a large refugee low/ageing population and a lot of far-right agitation but also probably greater American respect for freedom of religion.

Yes, Trump tweeted a link to that study himself the other day.
 
Definitely true that there are a lot of knowledgable people here. Though (and this isn't a caveat) everyone naturally is going to have their own interpretation of historical facts, depending on a lot of factors such as where they grew up.
I have never heard location used as a reason for a different complexion being put on facts before
 
Trump might find 88% of everybody convincing, he does seem to find it incredibly hard to believe that more people voted for Clinton and a lot of people still don't like him.
He doesn't even attempt to believe those things though, he just 'knows' that those 3 million votes were illegal / fraudulent, and that the protestors are all getting paid by Soros. I reckon he really thinks this, just like he must think his suits look good and his wife likes him.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CRI
Heh, I was reading about the American Revolution yesterday and some Brexit/Trump parallels came to mind.



Tea And Antipathy

The Canadian colonies, meanwhile, had to deal with a flood of thousands of refugees fleeing the brutal insurgency to the south.
I recall reading about rather a lot of hatred for distant chiselling Scots making a Big House fortune out of supplying the slave plantations.

The widespread baseless fear about the state being out to rob Americans of their ancient rights resurfaces before the South's secession and there's echoes of it in all the UN Black Helicopters/FEMA Camps/Gun Registration malarkey today.

Mind this may tap into an older English fancy as well. The Glorious Revolution in 1688 for instance is often celebrated as a flowering of democracy but was essentially a mean spirited assertion of very narrowly defined inclusion in political power driven by a long running paranoid fear of Papish Plots. My lot still stoat about on the 12th celebrating that one. The stamping on the fingers of the other by the entitled is often accompanied by yipping for ancient freedoms.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom